Marriage rows

You have given the wrong impression about the protest that took place outside the Scottish Parliament on Thursday by saying that “supporters of same-sex marriage were met by a noisy counter-demonstration” (9 December).

The truth is that the United Christian Witness and Protest Against Same-sex Marriage was organised already during October and by the end of that month had approval from the police. The police, however, did lay down the condition that no PA equipment would be allowed. The LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) lobby and the Humanist Society recently got wind of this and arranged a noisy counter-demonstration complete with three megaphones and PA equipment, which the police, despite complaints over this and the occasional bad language aimed in our direction, took no steps to remove.

They eventually permitted us to use a megaphone as well.

Paul Mansbacher

Gordon Terrace

Ayr

Dr Stephen Moreton and Paul Brownsey insist on assuming that disapproval of homosexual sex always implies hatred of homosexuals (Letters, 9 December).

In support of this conclusion, Mr Browning claims, bizarrely, to know my mind better than I do, and Dr Moreton fallaciously cites historical cases of persecution of homosexuals. It is difficult to argue when people refuse to engage with what I actually say, instead grappling with a straw man of their own creation, calling it “Richard Lucas”.

Mr Brownsey offered the spurious (and offensive) analogy, “I am not a racist; it’s just that these brown people smell funny.”

To justify any relevance to me, Mr Browning needs to quote a parallel to the second part, where my alleged hatred of homosexuals is laid bare.

Instead of confidently tackling what I don’t say, can they answer the question that I have asked repeatedly in the vain hope that someone might offer an answer? This egalitarian argument employed to justify same-sex “marriage” can equally be marshalled to justify polygamous, polyamorous or temporary marriage.

What arguments can be made against them once it has been conceded that the definition of marriage is flexible?

Dr Walter Schumm found strong evidence that homosexual parenting leads to a far higher incidence of homosexuality in children, so of course he is regarded as a homophobic maverick. No wonder so many just quietly lay aside “controversial” results.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh

I am writing on the final day of the Scottish Government’s 14-week consultation on same-sex marriage. The Equality Network applauds and thanks everyone who has taken the time to submit a consultation response.

We see in Friday’s papers that Cardinal O’Brien has “hit out” at people who responded from outwith Scotland. The Equality Network is sure that the large majority of people responding are residents of Scotland. But we know some people outwith Scotland have an interest in this, including for example expatriate Scots who plan to return here, and those who might visit to marry. So long as the Scottish Government distinguishes the responses from outwith Scotland, when analysing the consultation result, what’s the problem?

When the consultation was launched, the government asked people to engage in respectful debate. We believe the many supporters of same-sex marriage have done that, and that there is a clear way forward that respects the objections from the larger religious bodies.

That is to allow same-sex marriages, in line with the majority view in Scotland, but to make quite sure that no religious body can be required to be involved unless the body agrees to do so. We look forward to the government’s analysis of the consultation responses, and to further progress in 2012.

Tim Hopkins

Equality Network

Bernard Street

Edinburgh